Anyone who criticizes Sharia law or gay marriage could be branded an
“extremist” under sweeping new powers planned by the Conservatives to combat
terrorism, an alliance of leading atheists and Christians fear. Theresa May,
the Home Secretary, unveiled plans last month for so-called Extremism
Disruption Orders, which would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists
from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on
Facebook or Twitter without permission…..

But George Osborne, the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to
constituents that the aim of the orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all
its forms” and that they would be used to curtail the activities of those who
“spread hate but do not break laws”. He explained that that the new orders,
which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to any
activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion,
sexual orientation, gender or disability.

This particular milquetoast – let
us dub her Mother Theresa – is proposing out-and-out, blanket censorship which
she would enforce with the heavy hand of the police, the courts, and the slimy accusations
of informants and those whose “feelings” have been hurt. “I want” figures
prominently in her speech.She delivered
her
speech, in contrast to the chanting and ranting of Muslims who also inform
us that Sharia will dominate Britain (and the West), at a Conservative/Tory
Party conference in typical
wallflower style, from a printed text at the podium (well, at least she
didn’t use a teleprompter), with less charisma than Barbara “Let’s go walkies!”
Woodhouse giving advice on how to train one’s dogs. Here she condemned
“extremists” of all breeds as possibly infected with rabies and she let it be
known that they should all “sit” and “heel” and “stay” in their own speech lest
they be served with the blackjack of an “Extremism Disruption Order” (EDO) and
isolated in a kennel.

Surely the coiner of that awkward, euphemistic
nomenclature for “preemptive censorship” could have come up with something a
little less depersonalized and antiseptic. Like “Taser”? The purpose of such
political tasers, wielded by police or the
courts, would be “to prevent conflict, protect life and resolve disputes with
personal safety equipment that makes communities safe….” And surely that
description is copasetic with Mother Theresa’s agenda of preventing conflicts
and resolving disputes, especially if the conflicts concern Muslims, gays,
trannies, and other odd bodkins.

I’ll bet not many Britons ever expected to
be accosted, manhandled, cuffed, and tossed into a cell by an aggressive
milquetoast with a little help from the bully boys for having indulged in their
freedom of speech, or for what they might
have said. But, there you are. If you’re on her “no barking” list of
“extremists,” you’d better confine yourself to whining, whimpering, or pouting.
You may be seen, but not heard.

A court, however, could not forbid an “extremist”
to speak or broadcast or even “tweet” on Twitter unless his name was on a Vatican-like
Index of
Prohibited Books. Let us call it instead Index Librorum Prohibitorum Novissimarum Orator, or the Index of Prohibited Extremist
Speakers. One must first be a known and red-flagged “extremist” speaker to earn
a place on that list.

That’s quite a job for a government
practiced in police-state surveillance as Britain’s already is. It even monitors what trash is put in wheelie
bins. We have the NSA. Britain has Mother Theresa and her minions. They’re
fighting the “war on terror” by promising “extremists” a night in the box. They
will be watched, monitored, and even “disrupted.” I think there was a science
fiction TV series that featured “disrupter” ray guns. How appropriate a choice
of words.

After congratulating herself on fighting crime and dousing the fires of
“extremism” with the current
tools at hand, Mother Theresa went on:

But we must continue to do more. Soon, we will make Prevent a statutory
duty for all public sector organizations. I want to see new banning orders for
extremist groups that fall short of the existing laws relating to terrorism. I
want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay just within the law
but still spread poisonous hatred. So both policies – Banning Orders and
Extremism Disruption Orders – will be in the next Conservative manifesto.

For one thing, it’s the “extreme” dhimmitude displayed by Mother Theresa
throughout her speech. Several times she stated emphatically that ISIS, the al
Nusra Front,Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, like-minded groups in Libya, Al Shabaab in East
Africa, the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan all have nothing to do with Islam.
Just as the salute, Sieg Heil!, has
nothing whatsoever to do with Nazism, Allahu
Akbar! has nothing to do with flying planes into skyscrapers or the mass
executions of non-Muslims and rival Muslims.

Or so Mother Theresa would have you
believe. This is a species of denial bordering on psychosis. For example:

This hateful
ideology has nothing to do with Islam itself. And it is rejected by the
overwhelming majority of Muslims in Britain and around the world….

Well, no, they
don’t reject it. They’re merely the “silent majority” who have no opinion about
what their “violent” brethren do in the way of acting out the violent verses in
the Koran (about 164 of them, at last
count; see Answering Islam’s extensive list of them here).
Or they don’t dare frown upon “violent” Islam lest they be subject to violence
themselves. After all, it’s all in their “good book,” the Koran, and who are they to question its contents? Those
non-participatory, “silent” Muslims have a ho-hum attitude about Islamic
terrorism:“Oh, well, there’s another
train blown up, more filthy infidels killed in a shopping mall. What’s the latest
soccer score?”Some 80%
of London Muslims don’t mind the violence one iota.

Mother Theresa
conspicuously identifies that what she claims isn't Islam is also a
“hateful” ideology, which proves that some synapses are crackling in her brain.
But then a politically correct circuit breaker kicks in, and the current stops
flowing. What has nothing to do with Islam is, at the same time, a “radical
ideology” or an “extremist” ideology. Can she answer the question: If it is
“radical” or “extremist,” what ideology
is it a “radical” or “extremist” version of? Has it an identity? What is the thing? Does it have a name? If she saw a half-assembled table, would she object to its
completion because she could forecast that at one point it would become an
“extremist” table and not a carburetor?

Of course she knows
what it is and what it will be. But because the subject is Islam, denying
Islam’s essential identity helps her (and fellow dhimmi David Cameron) “prevent”
the ruffling of Muslim feathers. Muslim values are now British values.

The terrorists who
murdered David Haines like to call themselves the Islamic State. But I will
tell you the truth: They are not Islamic. And they are not a state. Their
actions have absolutely no basis in anything written in the Quran. What they
believe has no resemblance whatsoever to the beliefs of more than a billion
Muslims all over the world…..

Chancellor George Osborne was more succinct
in his description of the means and ends of Bannings and EDOs. Bingham writes:

…George Osborne,
the Chancellor, has made clear in a letter to constituents that the aim of the
orders would be to “eliminate extremism in all its forms” and that they would
be used to curtail the activities of those who “spread hate but do not break
laws”. He explained that that the new
orders, which will be in the Conservative election manifesto, would extend to
any activities that “justify hatred” against people on the grounds of religion,
sexual orientation, gender or disability.

He also disclosed
that anyone seeking to challenge such an order would have to go the High Court,
appealing on a point of law rather than fact.

So, all forms of “extremist” speech must be
eliminated, and those suspected of harboring “extremist” thoughts or sentiments
must be curtailed, especially if they don’t cross the threshold of statutory
crime. Hovering close to a “speech crime” will not be tolerated, either.

It’s significant that Mother Theresa made
extra-special points about Islam and Muslims. It’s as though Baptists and
Seventh Day Adventists didn’t merit protection from “extremist” defamation or
mockery or criticism of their creeds, but British Muslims do. Atheists would be
effectively and “preemptively” silenced on the subject of Muslims and Islam
because to them, all the various religions and creeds occupy one big crockery
shop.

However, the “peaceful” jihad that Mother Theresa has had
nail-gunned to her mind has as little to do with Islam as contemplating one’s
navel or performing yoga. It’s not self-disciplining fitna,
which she must mistake for a dietary regimen. Perhaps she has observed Muslims practicing
Chi-Gong to rid their bodies of its toxins.
But, I rather think they enjoy those ideological toxins; it’s their kind of
homicidal adrenaline.

“Extremism” is what novelist/philosopher
Ayn Rand would call an anti-concept intended to suppress discussion of
fundamental principles in order to prevent conflict or open dissension. It is
an essentially meaningless term that stands for what she called “blank-outs.” It
is anti-mind, an act of deliberate evasion of facts, of reality. Mother
Theresa, like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and many others, has
fried mental circuit breakers that have permanently stopped any recognition of
facts and reality regarding Islam. It is a refusal to think.

At first reading, towards the end of her
relativist and moral equivalence spiel at the Conference, it is difficult to
identify the subject:

All British people
– including British Muslims – are free to practice their faith, and wear
whatever clothes they choose. They are free to establish their own faith
schools and give their children - including their girls – the best education
possible. They are free to build their own churches, temples and mosques and
worship freely. These are the benefits of living in a pluralistic society. But
the whole point of living in such a society is that there are not just rights
but responsibilities too. You don’t just get the freedom to live how you choose
to live. You have to respect other people’s right to do so too. And you have to
respect British values and institutions. The rule of law. Democracy. Equality.
Free speech. And respect for minorities. These are the values that make our
country what it is. These are our values. There is no place for extremism here.

There will, I’m
sure, be some who say politicians shouldn’t get involved in these matters. But
to live in a modern liberal state is not to live in a moral vacuum. We have to
stand up for our values as a nation. There will, I know, be some who say that
what I describe as extremism is merely social conservatism. But if others
described a woman’s intellect as “deficient”, denounced people on the basis of
their religious beliefs, or rejected the democratic process, we would quite
rightly condemn their bigotry. And there will be others who say I am wrong to
link these kinds of beliefs with the violent extremism we agree we must
confront. To them I say, yes, not all extremism leads to violence. And not all
extremists are violent.

Of whom is she speaking? The English Defense
League? The UKIP? Muslim clerics? Muslim vigilante patrols? No-go Muslim
ghettos within British cities?

But the damage
extremists cause to our society is reason enough to act. And there is,
undoubtedly, a thread that binds the kind of extremism that promotes
intolerance, hatred and a sense of superiority over others to the actions of
those who want to impose their values on us through violence.

Yes, that thread belongs to an ideology, the ideology of Islamic
conquest. But, to Mother Theresa, Islam is a “religion of peace” and isn’t an
ideology at all. And if the evidence of the daily claims of Islamic superiority
over and intolerance for all other faiths or styles of living boasted by Muslim
“extremists” both in Britain and from abroad aren’t enough to open her mental
circuit breakers, then nothing will. She chooses to blank out.

And if you
don’t reciprocate and blank out, as well, but insist on speaking your peace, then you will be criminalized by Mother
Theresa as an “extremist.” You, and not the Muslims who are free to exercise
their freedom of speech by carrying cardboard signs that say, Behead Those Who Insult Islam.

Theresa May, Home Secretary, you see, is a
humanitarian, one of the most dangerous and implacable people in civil society.
There is no use in offering her evidence, facts, or reasoned arguments. She has
immunized herself against them. Like Winston Smith’s inquisitor O’Brien in George3
Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, she succumbed
to the totalitarian mentality. “They got me a long time ago,” O’Brien tells
Winston Smith.

Theresa May should confess the same
conquest. But won’t. Freedom of speech
can go to hell.